Posted
by
timothyon Thursday April 14, 2011 @03:07PM
from the because-you-have-failed-to-achieve dept.

snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Neil McAllister test-drives Flash Player 10.2 for Android 3.0 and finds its shortcomings too sweeping to be chalked up to beta status. 'The worst part is the player's inconsistent behavior. This gets really frustrating when there's lots of HTML and Flash content mixed on a Web page. The UI turns into a tug-of-war between the browser and the Flash Player, where each touch produces varying effects, seemingly at random,' McAllister writes. 'As far as I could tell, there was one thing and one thing only that the Flash Player for Android 3.0 accomplished successfully. On the stock Android browser, Flash content is invisible, so you don't notice Flash-based advertising. With the Flash Player installed, however, all those ads suddenly appear where once there were none, their animated graphics leaping and scuttling under your fingertips like cockroaches on a dinner tray — some achievement.'"

If Linux users copped this kind of attitude for Flash, they would be portrayed as RMS worshiping hippies with little grip on reality by the same exact Apple fanboys that get their hate-on for Flash.

It's like Linux users advocating that Microsoft port IE6 to Linux to be able to view websites that need it rather than to demand that webmasters code to standards.Android users are so desperate for something to differentiate themselves from iOS they are fighting on the wrong side here.

When every browser supports flash except the browser on iOS devices, who's desperate to differentiate? Android users just want what's always been available to them in every other environment they use.

Personally, I think Flash is lame. Webmasters and designers use it WAY too much. I appreciate video players, but even that should be phased out as html5 gets more traction. When I'm building sites, I avoid flash like the plague. I'll use flash only if there is NO OTHER WAY to accomplish my goal. I can't c

When every desktop browser supports flash except the browser on iOS devices, who's desperate to differentiate?

Fixed that for you. Maybe the problem is more complex than just "Apple sux". Flash for Android has shown to be lacking. While Adobe announced Flash for Blackberry in 2009, they haven't released it yet for the general public. Maybe Apple doesn't want to release a buggy beta platform on their devices?

It makes sucking donkey balls down the intertubes with one cup providing lubricant taste good.

Flash(yes even the supposedly hardware accelerated version) takes my mac book from 6 hours of surfing off the battery to 2 hours. I watch a whole core on my core dou system grind at 70% usage over and over again.

Flash on android is just that bad too. Not only do you not get full flash api(lots of things aren't there at all just the most common for video and websi

When every browser supports flash except the browser on iOS devices, who's desperate to differentiate? Android users just want what's always been available to them in every other environment they use.

iOS devices don't support it because it doesn't work properly, as TFA explains, and there's a better way (AND because frankly Adobe screwed Apple over with the terrible Flash on OSX for years.) For some reasons Android users prefer to use a technology that's broken for their platform rather than to seize on it as an opportunity to move on to better things. Maybe Adobe will get a decent version of Flash on mobile devices in a couple of months or a year but where's the famous push of open source enthusiasts f

With the Flash Player installed, however, all those ads suddenly appear where once there were none, their animated graphics leaping and scuttling under your fingertips like cockroaches on a dinner tray

Oh so that's what everyone means when they say flash lets you see "the whole web".

Speaking of ads, I was on a site with heavy flash ads, and noticed that Activity Monitor was showing both my CPU cores pegging. I check it out and Chrome's Flash handler was using something like 150% of CPU time.

I remember back when I used to run Windows on my laptop, if the battery suddenly dropped 50% in ten minutes I'd go to the task manager and find some minimized Firefox window maxing out a core running some Flash crap. Firefox seems to handle that better these days, or maybe Linux Flash does.

I swear, you'd think people like InfoWorld's Neil McAllister were as smart as they sound. Oh, but wait, he wants the "default" experience. M'kay, then he shouldn't run "beta" products.

You're a pretty clever guy, I guess. So how do you figure a mainstream tech publication is going to run a review of a user experience that you can only get if you root your tablet? How many Xooms do you think Motorola has sold, how many of those are going to be rooted, and how many of those rooted Xooms are going to have a good user experience running Flash? (Read the review for a hint.)

Air and Flex are really where these are useful. Certainly video sites, but most will just have native apps...so yes for the average consumer flash isn't much a bonus over native apps that will of course perform better.

Remote desktop sharing may or may not use native apps, but there could be some usefulness for some of the "share my desktop" sites out there.

Gaming has some bonus. Most of the facebook games are Flash based. So all those Facebook games that this guy probably doesn't play will work....many of them of course will port to natives...I guess it just gives Android a bigger app number.

So all those Facebook games that this guy probably doesn't play will work...

Unless they have any kind of mouseover interface. And if the flash content that he did try didn't work properly, why do you expect Facebook games will be any different even if they don't use mouseover? They aren't all that reliable even in Internet Explorer (I don't use it, but my friend that plays facebook games does).

It is perhaps ironic that Apple is the driving force behind the anti-Flash movement, since IMHO the biggest problem with Flash is that it caters to anal-retentive developers who want everything just so.

While HTML and CSS contort themselves to suit the browser and user, Flash was designed to be a window unto itself; a stage on which everything works exactly as the developer intended. At first, that may seem like a good thing—especially to developers. However, it conveys a false sense of conformity, causing developers to lose sight of the reason why HTML was made to be so flexible. The Internet is a diverse place where Flash's attitude of one-design-for-everybody breaks down:

Oh, you've got a small screen? Sorry, we didn't plan for that.Oh, you want to translate the text? Sorry, we didn't plan for that.Oh, you're using a touch interface? Sorry, we didn't plan for that.Oh, you need large fonts? Sorry, we didn't plan for that.Oh, you have a low-end CPU? Sorry, we didn't plan for that.Oh, you use a screen reader? Sorry, we didn't plan for that.Oh, you're on an unsupported/64-bit browser or OS? Sorry, we didn't plan for that.And so on.

As handheld devices take off, the Internet is becoming even more diverse, and the notion that Flash can provide the same experience for everyone is becoming less and less plausible.

I thought flash was interesting and possibly very useful, then everybody started making these flash monstrosities of websites that became gaudy fairgrounds of useless crap. That's when I swore off flash. Shortly after that the 'advertisers' discovered flash. At that point, flash became the marauding barbarians at the gate. The only real choice was to reinforce the wall, ready the boiling oil, and siege engines. Metaphorically speaking.Currently I hate flash, though I still need it for certain things. If t

The annoying part is when you want to see a video that mandates ads before you get to watch, there's no filter that allows the video to be played while blocking the ad that precedes it. I know some news sites are setup this way.

I thought flash was interesting and possibly very useful, then everybody started making these flash monstrosities of websites that became gaudy fairgrounds of useless crap. That's when I swore off flash.

Flash is occasionally useful - some sites won't even show you any content without it, or like Strongbad have their content primarily in flash. But why on earth would anyone run flash without a flashblock extension in the browser? That's just idiotic!

Seriously, maybe i'm just an old fart, but whatever happened to the user being the one in control of his or her own computer? Why do more people not insist on having control over their machines? Why would you trust any random flash content *by bloody default*?

SOME flash is useful. SOME flash is malicious. SOME flash is merely advertising. The only thing that makes sense is to run that flash which is useful. Arbitrarily running any flash at all - sheesh, would you let anyone in the world borrow your car? Your house? Or would you only permit that of people you trusted? Why should your computer be any different?

Flash is occasionally useful - some sites won't even show you any content without it, or like Strongbad have their content primarily in flash.

Homestar Runner used to be my primary reason to install Flash. This was back in the days Linux users were bitching about Flash because it was so poorly supported, now it seems they are its biggest cheerleaders. Honestly, I haven't been to that site in a couple of years and anyone starting out now would be insane to do it with a Flash based website.

SOME flash is useful. SOME flash is malicious. SOME flash is merely advertising. The only thing that makes sense is to run that flash which is useful.

The "problem" with flash these days is that there is a better solution for the problems it solves, especially on mobile devices. They are pushing a bad solution t

They are pushing a bad solution to a technical problem and that's why Adobe will eventually lose even if they make it "good enough."

Bad solutions win more often than not, especially if there's a few billion in advertising dollars behind them.

Sure, but usually not when there is a popular platform that offers a better solution. That better solution is HTML5 on the desktop and mobile for video and native apps on mobile for games. The platform is iOS, it doesn't even need to retain dominance because the fatal blow has already been dealt: who would start a project these days with Flash as their primary technology ? The fact they are making their play for relevance with Adobe Air shows that Adobe know the way the wind is blowing.

All of the existing Android implementations of Flash behave like this. On my Viewsonic GTablet, Flash 10.2 defaults to loading On Demand (ie you click play) in both the default browser and alternate browsers like Opera Mobile.

The default way that Flash presented itself on my Android 2.2 tablet (Point Of View Tegra 2) was by showing an empty block with an arrow in it where you would normally see the Flash content. If you then tap on it, it is activated.

I disabled that tap-enabled mode for the following reasons:1) the Tegra2 dual core is plenty fast2) I only visit fairly straightforward sites with Flash, like news-sites and such.

Personally I couldn't be happier. Flash on Android, even on 2.2 works as advertised as far as I'm concerned. Later I indeed would like to use it with Firefox 4 and add-block & flashblock plugins but for now it works fine for the things I expect from it.

Arbitrarily running any flash at all - sheesh, would you let anyone in the world borrow your car? Your house? Or would you only permit that of people you trusted? Why should your computer be any different?

ya right on. in fact, i don't load any web pages either, because we all know most of those are really applications written in javascript.

but i can't wait for HTML 5. i hear it magically manages to perform all the tasks currently performed by flash, but it doesn't use any CPU. can you imagine? those guys at apple are real smart. and the best thing about HTML 5 is that it can't be disabled or uninstalled, because it's part of the browser!

By setting the browser to enable plug-ins on demand, unwanted flash ads appear as clickable boxes, and and flash object in a page can be loaded by clicking it.

Since nobody is likely to rewrite the whole internet to exclude flash (espeically since there are old browsers that practically require flash) it's really nice to be able to have flash when you need it.

I've used flash many times on my phone, and my only complaint is that the phone can be a bit wonky about registering clicks. But this happens with 'clever' html too.

By setting the browser to enable plug-ins on demand, unwanted flash ads appear as clickable boxes, and and flash object in a page can be loaded by clicking it.

Since nobody is likely to rewrite the whole internet to exclude flash (espeically since there are old browsers that practically require flash) it's really nice to be able to have flash when you need it.

But several of the big players are doing exactly that. If you play along with the people that continue to insist on flash by having your browser repor

But then again, I use the equivalent of "adblock" on my android phone so I never see those ads he speaks of.

But it's true about the moments of conflict between flash and browser. Guess what? There is no "hover" in a touch screen environment. That makes flash and even a lot of HTML/CSS/JavaScript pretty unsuitable for mobile/tablet browsing. Should we be shocked or should web developers need to take this into a little more consideration? I think they should -- after all, flash will be eventually replace

The issues brought up are mostly true for me as well (Dell Streak, Android 2.2) but the nice part is being able to watch embedded video and navigate websites with Flash front pages. Both seem to work properly (including DLink's annoying selector app). Video websites other than Youtube and Ustream which don't have their own apps are actually visible as well because Flash video is supported.

Can't people finally start admitting that maybe Apple was doing the right thing -- for users' long term experience -- in trying to get rid of Flash for mobile devices? It's so bizarre how hatred of Apple and Steve Jobs drives some tech people to irrationally support a lousy and proprietary plugin that we CAN move beyond. Flash was a great thing earlier in the history of the web, but it's time to leave it behind. The only reason the Android crowd loves it is because Apple was the first to admit that it was time to leave it behind. It's become a badge of honor to be able to check that box as a feature -- even if we would be better off (long term for sure) without it.

Apple was "right" in removing choice? It isn't even an option on iOS. I can "choose" to remove it from android if I want, just like on my desktop. If people don't want it, they can remove it. Removing CHOICE is ignorant, arrogant, and truly the Apple way.

The Flash debate wasn't just about Flash. For many of us, it was simply an example of Apple's needless lock-down.

The thing is, it wasn't needless. As this article shows Apple made the call that users normal users not technically astute enough to make good choices, would use try to use Flash and it just wouldn't work for them.

So Apple removed it and tried (and succeeded) in convincing many sites to support the iPhone/iPad without Flash.

Users are better off because they get sites that actually work on mobile devices. Website designers are better off because they have fewer Flash components to maintain.

The only people complaining are the technical elite here on Slashdot, who are ignoring the real benefits for users this choice resulted in. Lots of people here just want to have a choice because it exists, without thinking about what is better for 90% of the people who use the device.

Lets abandon the past of abusing users and really design systems that real people can use. The rest of us technical people can easily override these simplistic defaults and do what we like. But let us not pollute the base platform with choices that hurt people who don't understand how to stop the pain.

Not that this was not already known. Flash basically is a way-out (that works badly) for people that do not get the web and force the old concepts both of paper (where you have absolute positioning) and of movies into the web. That is a bad idea to start with. To make it worse, this particular failed technology suffers from vendor lock-in, bad implementation, bad specification and an atrocious security record. Why anybody competent would want to use Flash is beyond me. Of course, it is possible that nobody

Do I make use of Flash on my phone a lot? Not really.. Am I glad that for the few times I need it that it's there? Yup.

Since I'm sure the comparisons will be made:iPhone - Flash uses up 0% of CPU, works on 0% of Flash based sites - for some people this is ideal.Android: Flash uses up CPU (potentially lots) when I allow it to (it's set to on demand), works on... 20% of Flash based sites? - for some people this is better then the above option.

I guess I'm in the camp that prefers to have the tools, even if they're far from perfect, then to not be allowed the choice. Each to their own really.

Uhhh your aware of the fact that Android's built in browser is treated as a "mobile browser" too right? There's nothing preventing me from viewing a mobile friendly version of a page if it exists - this isn't a special feature of the iPhone. In fact sometimes it's annoying in that as a mobile browser I can't see the full website.

I think he means those sites with "if browser supports flash, show XXX, else show YYY". Even with flash block (on demand), your browser will report that flash is supported and thus get the flash version of the site.

Hmm can you point out a site that I'm missing out on? I've yet to experience what your describing. Closest example I can think of would be something Flash heavy like Gizmodo or Kotaku - both of which give me a mobile site.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't most "browser detection" happen in the browser agent ID? Never heard of detecting your browser based on flash capability before. Not a web developer tho so would suprise me if I'm wrong on this.

This gets really frustrating when there's lots of HTML and Flash content mixed on a Web page. The UI turns into a tug-of-war between the browser and the Flash Player, where each touch produces varying effects, seemingly at random

So apparently, the author argues that websites NOT designed for mobile SUCK. And I agree... but is this a gripe of Flash or not?

How many HTML sites royally suck on my iPhone. TONS. Especially ones with multiple cascading menus, huge link lists, etc, etc. To exclaim that Flash apps made a few years back don't work well nor handle certain motion behaviors is a pretty lame argument. A site not made for mobile use is usually going to be a poor mobile experience. It doesn't matter if it's HTML or not.

Yes, the iPhone taunted the whole internet. But to be honest, I consider it an article reader browser for most sites. It's great for popping open a site, zooming in, and reading an article. But for actual use of many websites, it's just a PITA. This is not a fault of Apple, rather it's a fault of a screen not much bigger than a finger length.

A great example is going to a video player and complaining the menu controls aren't very usable. Well gee, you think. Does it matter whether such was made in HTML/Flash/HTML5 - nope. If the web app is NOT designed for mobile, the experience will suck. You will have to zoom in, use a control, zoom back out. LAME.

But as more apps are designed to recognize and deliver a mobile based experience. This will be come less of an issue. Does Flash lack the touch? Or does a 2 yr old desktop focused Flash app lack a touch experience. There is a difference.

The iPad doesn't. I hope that ESPN releases the "ESPN3" app for the iPad, but until then, I can get my sports fix on my Android device. As for the ads, set flash to only turn on when you activate it. Flash is not forced on you, it's an option.

I was thrilled to get flash on my android phone and still am. I don't give a crap about flash video or games, what I DO care about is that menus and navigation finally work on sites that I had to give up reading on my iPhone. yes, i still used my desktop for them, but it was inconvenient.

Expecting a flash app or game to run well on a mobile is just delusional. I'm sitting here on a quad core pc w/ 6 gb of RAM and a nice video card and my wife can slow things to a crawl loading farmville/cityville/cafewo

I own a 2007 MBP. Flash is too heavy for that. If I fancy emptying my battery in 30 minutes, I allow flash. It's permabanned from the machine for the sake of usability, and it's not a particulary underpowered machine either.

No. Flash isn't necessarily ideal but I'd rather have the choice. There have been times when I've been out and wanting to view a specific video, listen to a radio station etc where there wouldn't be an iphone app. You have the choice to completely disable it, I think possibly even uninstall it, and easily set it to only on demand... Whereas with Apple, you have none...

No. Flash isn't necessarily ideal but I'd rather have the choice. There have been times when I've been out and wanting to view a specific video, listen to a radio station etc where there wouldn't be an iphone app. You have the choice to completely disable it, I think possibly even uninstall it, and easily set it to only on demand... Whereas with Apple, you have none...

I'm kinda like you -- I prefer to have choices.

The general public, however, does not think that way at all. They aren't interested in choices and certainly don't want to fucking think about it. Please don't bother them.

Apple is a profanely profitable company because that nail that kinda stuff.

I also like to have choices. Currently I have an iPhone4, and love it, but sometimes I still miss functionality on certain sites. Most interesting video sites now support alternate formats, but there is still the occasional one that doesn't. Not the end of the world, but definitely a downside to using Apple products.

However, I do hate the idea of flash, and if Apple's refusal to allow it is what it takes to finally drive the web to never rely on it as the only way to deliver functionality, then that is a

There have been times when I've been out and wanting to view a specific video, listen to a radio station etc where there wouldn't be an iphone app.

Did you actually try those sites on an iPhone? Because just about any site now simply gives that content directly to the iPhone instead of forcing you to use a Flash wrapper to play it. That way media doesn't have fiddly controls, I can control it easily.

The reality is that if you are browsing media almost everything will work on an iPhone or iPad these days.

Thing is, Flash stuff is made by artists, and artists are commanded by marketeers, and marketeers exist to annoy the shit out of you, and we all know what Flash ads do... Flash let adverts become the new embedded midi. I browse with flashblock on, with a small whitelist for things like YouTube, but generally it stops my browser doing annoying things like lock up, play sounds I really don't want to hear or throw shit across the site whilst I'm browsing. Like frames, flash will eventually be dropped for the sake of everyone's sanity. Unfortunately JavaScript is allowing web designers to do some more annoying shit again, but it takes longer to appear as it's nowhere near as draggy and droppy as Flash is.

Hand in your geek card. Its not about flash being heavy, it's about every single flash-ready web site being designed to be navigated with a mouse, and being designed to appear as annoying as possible to boost ad clicks. That is the problem plaguing flash on handhelds, you dont have a mouse and you dont have screen real estate to waste on ads. Was apple right in saying that flash adds little to nothing to the overall handheld browsing experience? Yes. Then again, no one is making you use flash on your p

Also remember that we're coming up on 4 years since the iPhone came out and was ridiculed for not supporting Flash. 4 years of vastly increasing mobile computing power and memory. 4 years for Adobe to get its act together. 4 years to see why HTML5 video and animation is important.

4 years. If this is what we're seeing now, just imagine what Jobs was shown way back when the decision was made.

Also remember that we're coming up on 4 years since the iPhone came out and was ridiculed for not supporting Flash. 4 years of vastly increasing mobile computing power and memory.

And if Apple had supported Flash from the start, it wouldn't have made it on the Phone until the 3 GS anyway, because that's how long it takes for Adobe to actually bring out something barely working. Android "supported" Flash from the start - look how long that took to actually appear.

You might want to start from the premise that not everyone who writes something critical about something you like is a fanboy or paid shill of the "opposition". That level of cynicism speaks volumes about the fragility of your own belief in the thing you are "protecting".

So when an Android 3.0 user writes about how Flash sucks on Android 3.0, he's a "fanboy" of a totally different platform? You are not making sense, and believe that performance for 2.3.x (which I guess you have) indicates anything at all about performance under 3.0. When it does not, ref. all the writing about how Flash for Honeycomb and the Xoom was delayed at launch.

Does actual Flash applications - and not just the YouTube video player, or animated Flash ads - but for instance hover-dependent Facebook games, do they actually "work very well" there?

Or given how Apple treats mobile app developers, maybe Adobe decided it wasn't worth the risk of investing in Flash on iPhone and then have it summarily dismissed if they weren't on the right side of Apple's business plan of the moment?

Adobe may have chose to wait for Android to be worth marketing to, and are now making the investments to bring Flash up to speed. Not that I like Flash one bit...

Someone has to take a stand. Apple did. Had it been some other company,/. would have most likely cheered them on, as they used to despise flash as if it was the devil itself. When Apple said no, suddenly/. loved flash and couldn't wait to get it on their mobile devices. It would be funny if it wasn't so painful to watch.

Frankly I don't miss it (I have an iPhone). I have yet to need it on any site I frequent on my phone. Without fail they all seem to have either M. sites for mobile devices, or they just ha

I've been using Flash on my Nexus one for a while now and yeah it had bugs and issues and crashes a lot but there are certain situations that it was eitherA. Use a buggy flash implementationB. Don't view the content at all

I know that I'd choose the buggy Flash 99% of the time. Also, I have flash setup to only display on demand which means that I don't see the flash content unless I want to.

There are and endless number of sites on the internet that feed Pron out in h.264 to iPhones and iPads. Saying that need Flash to get Pron from the internet is like saying that you can't get any water unless you have a specific faucet when it's raining outside and a fleet of Deep Rock trucks are stuck just outside your door with flat tires.

Flash can be created/written to do all sorts of things. I have had my flash code call javascript functions to change the z-index of the div it lives in and a lot more. There are certainly ways to control every aspect of a flash object's behavior to make it behave properly in the web page's environment.

So the solution to fixing an infestation of proprietary software into what is supposed to be an open web is to just keep using the proprietary software? And the reason is because some web developer picked a proprietary method of embedding videos, and shouldn't be bothered to change them? Do you feel the same for all the web developers who picked the proprietary Real Video solution a while back?

Apple blocking Flash is one of the best things to happen to try and get a proper open way of doing video on the web. Real, Quicktime, and Windows Media were all past attempts we are glad failed now. Flash took over for a while, but it's time to go join it's proprietary buddies of the past.